Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
I can add some U tube and facebook links if that would help you get started.
oke: 
Well in fairness to DXO I don't have a problem with what they do as they provide neutral quantitative data. Nothing wrong with what they do. The problem is how SOME people think in that they take that metric as the ONLY metric that ultimately matters instead of adding it as a factor to add with all the other data to make an informed preliminary decision before subjective testing begins. You see that honestly in everything from audio where people look for the speakers with the least amount of distortion or how some people prefer the analog sound of vinyl to uncompressed digital formats. You also see that in sports every year where these scouts fall in love with the metrics of unknown players when 90% of what you need to know can be found on game film.
"Magic pixie dust" indeed. I'm glad you mentioned the 135 f1.8. That's kind of the feel I get. It's bright and clear and clean. The images have pop. And I'm gonna stop whining about how big it is. It's worth it.
Yeah I shot them side by side on Friday. Very similar in rendering with the 135mm having just a bit more (and I seriously mean just a bit) sharpness. Definitely can tell they're from the same family of lenses and yes I agree I rather have the burden of a bit more mass to get results I'm ecstatic about when I do my part than deal with a light lens that causes me to constantly look for something "better."
I think the most common response you'd get from 35FE Distagon owners would be "from my cold dead hands." :ROTFL:Anyone want to send me there 1.4 I'll test it against the Loxia 35
Personnally, I like to look at their sharpness tests, especially at what they name the fieldmap graph, where you choose the Fstop and focal length (in case of zooms) and you get an idea of how sharp your full frame will look.
True but most lenses give optimal performance stopped down a stop or two so the faster lenses have an "unfair" advantage of being in a sweet spot usually where a slower lens is still wide open. Usually most lenses are great from about f/4.5-f/8 so then you are looking at microcontrast advantages afforded by more expensive lenses, exotic elements, and improved lens coatings that give the faster/more expensive lenses further advantages.
Yeah if I still had a Leica body I would probably want those as well... Maybe.
+1. I do not ever look at actual scores that much, but the sharpness field maps are useful. My FE 24-70/4 OSS test (returned the lens after testing it few days) was perfect example. I could see the issues I had with both 24 and 70 mm materialize 1:1 in dxomark field maps.
The problem with their sharpness score comes from the fact that it is also a combined score (different apertures, different position in the frames and for zooms different focal length). What is exactly a score of 23 or 29 mpix ? They don't disclose exactly how this is calculate. So depending on how they combine the results they could advantage a lens over another. This us why I prefer to look at the field maps. Often, looking at the fieldmap, i don't understand how they rate one lens above the other. For instance, they gave the 28mm F2 a better score for sharpness, but it has soft corners at a lot of apertures. If I remember, you have to stop down to F8 if you want a little uniformity on the whole frame.
I don't know what the tests say but like the 55FE the 35FE Distagon is one that really shines on the higher MP body above the lower MP bodies. I don't think there will be any issues on a ~60MP body with the 35FE Distagon, the 55FE, or the Batis lenses.
You are wrong. Either you did not check the lens properly or read something (if it was written that way) bogus somewhere.
Yes, I was somewhat wrong, but the 28mm only gets uniform frame at F5.6 while the 35mm F1.4 is already clean at F2.8. I know that fast lenses will become better earlier. Still for me that doesn't justify that the 28mm get a better sharpness score than the 35mm.You are wrong. Either you did not check the lens properly or read something (if it was written that way) bogus somewhere.
The 28/2 already hits the maximum at f/4. If any lens is good at f/8 then it is not for the A7r and the like. There is a small factor called diffraction and despite Sony massaging the files when a FE lens is used, still creates problems.
You can always up the saturation or tone the heck out of it. There are many splendid examples.
